Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00205557DOJ Data Set 9Other

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2012 Page 1 of 2

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00205557
Pages
2
Persons
4
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2012 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT In two decisions last term, the Supreme Court constitutionalized the right to competent counsel in plea negotiations by ruling that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel "extends to the plea bargaining process" and that defendants are entitled to "the effective assistance of competent counsel" during plea negotiations. Lafler. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1384 (2012); Missouri. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1407-09 (2012). Under Lofty. and Frye, counsel have an ongoing obligation to provide effective representation in plea bargaining and to engage in communications with the client and the prosecutor to discharge that obligation. The limited

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009
Ask AI about this document

Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2012 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT In two decisions last term, the Supreme Court constitutionalized the right to competent counsel in plea negotiations by ruling that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel "extends to the plea bargaining process" and that defendants are entitled to "the effective assistance of competent counsel" during plea negotiations. Lafler. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1384 (2012); Missouri. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1407-09 (2012). Under Lofty. and Frye, counsel have an ongoing obligation to provide effective representation in plea bargaining and to engage in communications with the client and the prosecutor to discharge that obligation. The limited intervenor lawyers and limited intervenor Jeffrey Epstein submit Leer and Frye in support of their motions for protective orders and their objections to disclosure and use of plea negotiations by Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. The limited intervenors also submit Lafler and Frye in direct support of their arguments that the Court should recognize a common-law privilege in this case under Rule 501 in part because plea negotiations are an integral part of our criminal justice system. This was expressly recognized by the EFTA00205557 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2012 Page 2 of 2 Supreme Court in Laf ler and Fiye when it found that "plea bargains are . . . central to the administration of the criminal justice system" because ours is "a system of pleas, not a system of trials": Ninety-four percent of state convictions are the result of guilty pleas. The reality is that plea bargains have become so central to the administration of the criminal justice system that defense counsel have responsibilities in the plea bargain process, responsibilities that must be met to render the adequate assistance of counsel that the Sixth Amendment requires in the criminal process at critical stages. Because ours "is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials," it is insufficient simply to point to the guarantee of a fair trial as a backstop that inoculates any errors in the pretrial process. Lafter, 132 S. Ct. at 1388; Fiye, 132 S. Ct. at 1407. We certify that on April 18, 2012, the foregoing document was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. Respectfully submitted, BLACK, SREBNICK, KORNSPAN & STUMPF, P.A. 2 EFTA00205558

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM

Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 1 of 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 2Y) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. x APPEARANCES: WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH A. MARRA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: For Jane Doe TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00212053 Case 9:08-cv 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 2 of 51 2 I I I I I 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 FOR THE DEFENDANT: REPORTED BY: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL BURMAN, ESQ. Burman Critton, etc. 515 North Flagler Street West Palm Beach, FL 33401 JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. Atterbury Goldberger Weiss 250 Australian Avenue Sou

51p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

WVVW.PATHTOJUSTICECOM

WVVW.PATHTOJUSTICECOM Oro Tam Class Attie., Personal Injury Wrongful Death Commercial Liogation Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos Et Lehrman, P.L. January 29, 2015 Wilfredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 RE: Jane Does I and 2 v. United States Case No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Dear Mr. Ferrer: As you know, we have corresponded with you in the past on the Crime Victims' Rights Act case captioned above. And you met with Jane Doe No. 1 several years ago, promising (as we understood it) to do what could be done to help protect crime victims' rights in this case. It is in that spirit that we are writing to request your assistance on three motions that we are planning to make shortly in this case. We hope that you will be able to agree to all three requests. We will be filing these motions on Friday, February 6, 2015. Accordingly, the favor of a reply by Wednesday, February 4, 2015, is requested. I. Mot

80p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 1 of 23

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING OF INTERVENORS ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER CONCERNING PRODUCTION, USE, AND DISCLOSURE OF PLEA NEGOTIATIONS During the hearing on August 12, 2011, the Court directed the proposed intervenors to file additional briefing on their argument that plea negotiations are privileged and not subject to discovery or use as evidence in these proceedings. Proposed intervenors submit the following memorandum of law, which is identical to Parts I and II of the memorandum of law submitted by proposed intervenor Jeffrey Epstein in support of his motion for a protective order and his opposition to the motions of the plaintiffs for production, use,

23p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 295 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2015 Page 1 of 18

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 295 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2015 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Defendant. LIMITED INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO ORDER REQUESTING JUSTIFICATION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE ORDER A few days ago, on January 21, 2015, the plaintiffs' lawyers filed Plaintiffs' Response To Motion For Limited Intervention By Alan M. Dershowitz. [DE 291]. This is a 40-page pleading addressing whether the Court should allow Professor Dershowitz to intervene. At the very end, on page 38, the Plaintiffs quote from a 2007 plea and settlement negotiation letter that Epstein's defense lawyers sent to the government. The quote, in its entirety, is five or six words. The quote is redacted from the public filing but it is obvious that the quoted language is but a few words, not even a complete sentence. The le

18p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

eiasErg:08-cv

eiasErg:08-cv 1 2 3 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered UNITED STATES SOUTHERN DISTRICT WEST PALM CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 1 of 51 DISTRICT COURT OF FLORIDA BEACH DIVISION 4 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 5 JANE DOE, et al., 6 Plaintiffs, vs. JUNE 12, 2009 7 8 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 9 Defendant. 10 11 TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH A. MARRA, 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE APPEARANCES: 13 14 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQ. Mermelstein & Horowitz 15 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33160 305.931.2200 16 For Jane Doe 17 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 18 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 19 Jane Doe 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 954.522.3456 20 ISIDRO M. GARCIA, ESQ. 21 Garcia Elkins Boehringer 224 Datura Avenue 22 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Jane DOE II 561.832.8033 23 RICHARD H. WILLITS, ESQ. 24 2290 10th Avenue North Lake Worth, FL 33461

51p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 and #2 I. UNITED STATES JOINT STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS The parties hereby stipulate and agree that the following facts are not in dispute and may be accepted as true: 1. Between about 2001 and 2006, defendant Jeffrey Epstein (a—billienaire—with—signifteant politieal-eenneetiens)-sexually-abusedinere-than-40 enticed into prostitution minor girls at his mansion in West Palm Beach, Florida, and elsewhere. Among the girls he sexually sed so enticed were Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. Because Epstein, through others, used a means of interstate commerce and knowingly traveled in interstate commerce to engage in this conduct, te-abuse-Jane-Dee-#4-en43ane-Dee-#2-(and-the-ether-vietims), he committed violations of federal law, specifically repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. 2. In 2006, at the request of the Palm Beach Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Inves

132p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.